I was impressed with how well these guys know their economics. It was also interesting to see how they clearly understood the difference between the various European nationalisms and white nationalism.

On World War Z and Israel: I heard an interview on NPR with (IIRC) the son of Mel Brooks, who wrote the book that the movie was based on, and also an earlier zombie survival guide. They asked if the survival guide was a joke and he said no, he wrote it to work through his fears. So basically the author was a neurotic Eskimo.

Jack Donovan is the quintessential alt-righter: a homosexual presuming to lecture straights on masculinity.

I have read his "the way of men" and it was one of the weakest books I have read on the current situation we are in. His ideas are a lot more pro-group-of-men/ anti-family/ anti-pair-bonding than what a heterosexual would write. There are quite a few subsections of his books where he basically reduces women to objects which can be stolen, used and raped to foster a new civilization built by men. The whole Rome story for example. The book has a very cold, very MGTOW touch of things.

I read "the way of the superior man" right after it and it exemplified the contrast. The way this book talks about women and femininity is drastically different, while still maintaining a strong case for masculinity and the man as the leader. Another book in a similar direction is "The Power of Now" - but in this one we still have the "women are wonderful" aspect full in effect aside similar spiritual ideas which are in the way of the superior man.

The alt-iest alt-right has a iron-pill boner for this guy. I guess reading evola while PR'ing a dead lift while taking it in the ass while taking a selfie while meditating on the meaning of violence appeals to some of the kids these days.

Not useful for building a civilization, but in a world of decontextualized existence, even a bit of truth can make up for a lot of hemorrhoids, intellectual or otherwise.

@14 And here you are highlighting one of Jack's main points; any discussion about men and masculinity quickly devolves into a discussion about what women want from men.

"The Way of Men" is important because Donovan is able to easily and succinctly define masculinity according to the three tactical virtues (strength, courage, mastery) without dumbing it down to levels of "personhood" or "adulthood". He doesn't pontificate about women or femininity because that's not the focus of the book.

Yes, shortly after I read "The Way of Men", I learned that Donovan is a homosexual and it bothered me. After thinking it over, I still couldn't poke any holes in his assertions, and came to the conclusion that no man who was concerned with impressing, persuading or sleeping with women could have written that book.

If by "the current situation we are in", you mean that Western society is living under the rule of the feminine imperative, then you should really read "No Man's Land", which is available as a free Kindle/PDF download on Donovan's website. Here he attacks feminists and their enablers directly.

He doesn't pontificate about women or femininity because that's not the focus of the book. My point was: He DOES.

any discussion about men and masculinity quickly devolves into a discussion about what women want from men. What is missing is what men want from women. And that is not in Donovan's equation. Likely cause he doesn't want from them what heterosexual men want. Especially what men concerned about traditionalism and civilization want from women. I'm not talking about PUA and game here. If you define masculinity completely outside of the huge aspect of procreating, being a father and finding a suitable mother - how are you supposed to end up with something useful? Going back to the podcast. It's like discussing economy and ignoring the differences between ethnicity.

Launched in December of 2012, we are a political and cultural blog with four major goals:

Reinvigorating dialogue among a disparate and edgy right-wing.Severely rustling jimmies among the childish and regressive left-wing.Putting cuckservatives in the cuck shed where they can watch us with their civilization.Using the therapeutic power of LARPing to help tens of thousands of young men manage their autism.

praetorian wrote:The alt-iest alt-right has a iron-pill boner for this guy. I guess reading evola while PR'ing a dead lift while taking it in the ass while taking a selfie while meditating on the meaning of violence appeals to some of the kids these days.

All of these Alt Right forces coming together is exciting. Speaking from personal experience, the TRS "pool parties" are a resounding success. I've attended 4 in my city so far and each one has more people than the last. We're all going on a #HATEHIKE this weekend.

@25 "My point was: He DOES."Is there another example you're thinking of besides the founding of Rome? Yeah, you can't continue a civilization without women, but that hardly qualifies and defining women, much less pontificating on femininity.

"What is missing is what men want from women. And that is not in Donovan's equation."The Way of Men" is an in depth 100-level study of masculinity in and of itself. It has nothing to do with game, relationships or courtship in general. If you can't articulate what manhood is and why it has inherent value, you might a well be a "gender is a social construct"-spouting SJW. Women, marriage and fatherhood are all outside the scope of the book, and thus 200-level stuff.

While we're at it, hundreds of books, articles and blogs have been written about marriage, relationships and what women want from men. Jack Donovan writes one short book about masculinity from the perspective of men, and all of a sudden he "reduces women to objects which can be stolen, used and raped". What sort of entry-ist tripe are you trying to pull here?

Once again, according to trad-con white knights, there can be no. male. space. ever. Even when discussing masculinity.

"If you define masculinity completely outside of the huge aspect of procreating, being a father and finding a suitable mother - how are you supposed to end up with something useful?"Did you even read the book? One of the core concepts is that there's a difference between being a good man and being good at being a man. Sure, the Western Civilizational ideal is to be both. However, society's OCD-like focus on the former at the utter expense of the latter for the past 50+ years is exactly why everything from the sexual market place to the role of women in the military is so incredibly screwed up.

Gunnar, am I attack one of your heroes here or why are you that defensive?

Women, marriage and fatherhood are all outside the scope of the book, and thus 200-level stuff. Even in the very book we are talking about Donovan mentions Bonobo and Chimpanzee 'societies' and how courtship works in them.

What sort of entry-ist tripe are you trying to pull here?

Once again, according to trad-con white knights, there can be no. male. space. ever. Even when discussing masculinity.Trying to rhetoric my point away won't do shit. I'm incredibly used to people reacting emotional and throwing a hissy-fit.

Calm down tiger, Donovan won't sleep with you if you white knight for him on some message board.

So, to echo Mike Enoch, does a white goy who isn't an expat American Indian (VD), a gay homosexual (Milo), a latino (Correia), a latina (Hoyt), or a miscegenist (Torgerson), have any rhetorical standing?

Gunnar, am I attack one of your heroes here or why are you that defensive?I'm still trying to figure out how you read "The Way of Men" and walked away with those conclusions?

Even in the very book we are talking about Donovan mentions Bonobo and Chimpanzee 'societies' and how courtship works in them.The entire point of that chapter was to compare and contrast Bonobo matriarchy with Chimpanzee patriarchy, and extrapolate a few concepts to present day America. Donovan's conclusion was that matriarchy (aka the "Bonobo Masturbation Society") has nothing useful or meaningful to offer men. I may be way off base here, but your earlier posts mentioned "traditionalism and civilization". If you are, in fact, in favor of those things, how can you take issue with Donovan's points about matriarchal societies?

Calm down tiger, Donovan won't sleep with you if you white knight for him on some message board.And now who's being defensive and rhetorical?

So, to echo Mike Enoch, does a white goy who isn't an expat American Indian (VD), a gay homosexual (Milo), a latino (Correia), a latina (Hoyt), or a miscegenist (Torgerson), have any rhetorical standing?

There is no such thing as "rhetorical standing". There is no information content in rhetoric. Some of you guys really need to learn to stop trying to opine, or criticize, in obvious ignorance. You're not impressing anyone, you're just looking snarky and stupid.

And you're 2400 years out of date.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.